Replies to This Discussion

I'd pick another option in the poll - I'm for it but doesn't go far enough. It needs a public option for one. The insurance and medical lobbies blocked it because Medicare keeps costs much lower. Every time I hear people talk about how terrible it would be for government healthcare I ask if they want to get rid of Medicare for themselves or their parents and nobody says "yes" . People against health reform say the U.S. has the best system but forget that the government is by far the largest healthcare insurer in the country. The same people talk about Death Panels under reform but the only ones are in conservative states. The Governor of Arizona has already allowed numerous deaths of people needing transplants and the worst states for health are mostly very red.

I agree. It's a start but needs to be expanded into a public option plan. With the wingnut reptilicans I'm amazed Obama got what we got. Prisoners get better health care than most Americans get...except in the for profit prisons.

I'm for it, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go nearly as far as it should. Don't misunderstand me, as I somewhat (qualified) like President Obama. But he caved in to the Republican toady fascists for the insurance industry. When the bill was being debated, I happened to be in a Caribbean country where the majority of tourists are from Canada (can you say Fidel Castro?). The Canadians I spoke with, being cognizant of the debate in America on health care, had one question for me. "Are Americans really that f&*king stupid to be opposed to basic health care?!" I honestly had no good answer.

A public option, along the lines of the Canadian model, is the best option.

I'll got with #4 also. The Repubs are right about some things... it has Constitutional problems (though Repubs have no trouble ignoring the constitution in other areas). And the last thing we need is more inroads into the Constitution. It's not going to be sustainable. It's vast, complex, probably will reduce job creation as potential employers weigh the potential long term cost of each employee they take on.

Part of the problem is the slipping of the argument. Promoters of the bill talk about people crushed by massive medical bills from expensive things like cancer treatment, heart attack etc, but instead of addressing the high expense items they drag everything into the net (including the no copay birth control--what is the point of that).

The more sensible alternative is to provide (government assisted for low income if needed) catastrophic coverage that only kicks in for the financially catastrophic events.. the first few thousand you're on your own. This would be vastly less expensive and simpler to administer, but Congress actually eliminated that option completely.

My apologies for not seeing that there certainly would be the position of #1 not going far enough. [Guess it shows my own bias LOL ] WOW!!! And so many whom agree!

I guess the main reason I'm #4 is because the very presence of Insurance Companies within Health Care is what drives costs up. They have to get paid, and for what? They don't actually provide any value to the industry. Rather, they are a leech on Health Care. This Affordable Care Act will only stabilize high costs and not make anything any more affordable for anyone. (Do a few calculations on how much a $50 premium payment each month and a $30 copay will add to someone's expenses who only makes the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 an hour)

If we wanted to actually bring Healthcare costs down, we would OUTLAW Medical Insurance (except emergency). This would bring doctors, specialists and laboratories back to a truly free market of competition. And the Insurance companies' people would be forced to find some other means of generating income. Maybe they'd learn how to actually work for a living.

At the very least, it should be against the law to associate Health Insurance with your place of employment. Gees, this is such the burden on companies. It's a post WWII benefits incentive that has become ingrained in our society. Time to fix it by putting it back in the private lives of individuals.

That is correct. I do not see health care as a basic human right. I don't see how it can be equated with other Constitutionally recognized Rights. If you or anyone would point me in that direction, I would certainly be interested.

If your're asking do I consider welfare to be a right, I do not. There are very important, very fundamental Rights that are difficult enough for everyone to grasp and maintain. Welfare and Healthcare just don't equate on that level.

However, at least Welfare programs stay within the realm of the contract between the individual and government. If there are any private entities involved in welfare programs (which I don't know about), they can be doing nothing else but driving up the costs of that program by their very existence.

This Healthcare law incorporates extremely wealthy private companies that don't do anything beneficial for the healthcare industry except drive up costs because they want to get paid. And now we're trying to mandate their existence. Wow !!!

I would like to ask you: What do you think is the ultimate goal of the Medical community? Is it to learn how to make everyone immortal? Is it only to provide a 'quality of life' until death? And who gets to decide what 'quality of life' means?